The whole purpose behind the ICC was to instigate a trial where a country was unable or unwilling to do so itself.
If the ICC decides that there is enough evidence to put Blair on trial, it will first offer all of the evidence over to the UK government and ask it to instigate open and fair trial proceedings against the accused.
Only in the event that the UK government refuses will the ICC proceed with its own trial.

So had the US signed up to the ICC, Bush would have been given the option to be tried in the US anyway.

That's the common myth about the sanctions. May I clarify what actually happened? As you know, Saddam was allowed to sell oil in order to buy food.

However, Saddam did not himself do the buying and the selling - the entire process was performed by the UN Oil for Food programme. This body took the money from the oil sales, put the money into UN bank accounts and purchased the food and supplies for the Iraqi people. Once it had the supplies, they went to UN controlled warehouses and were distributed under the watchful eye of UN monitors. At every step of the process, the UN made meticulous records of the transactions. As a result, death by starvation was *very low* and only occured under extreme circumstances (drought for example).

What killed people (and this explains why children died in such vast numbers) was sickeness and accident and an inability to get treatment.
Sanctions forbade a wide range of goods used for neccessary and inncocent purposes - for example, it forbade water pumps, machinery and chemicals used in water treatment. So cases of waterborne diseases like cholera were common. And if you notice that your child is ill, you'd want to call an ambulance, right? Well, if you can find a working phone (telecommunications equipment was sanctioned) you wouldn't find an ambulance (most of the ambulance's equipment including the radio is sanctioned) and so you'd have to bring the child to the hospital yourself. When you arrive you will find the place less than hygenic (soap was sanctioned) and the doctor will inform you that he has a bed but medicine is sanctioned and unavailable...
Other effects of the sanctions meant that the economy no longer generated money - this in turn meant that public service workers could not be paid. Is there a fire? Call your neighbours because the fireman quit through lack of pay a long time ago - what garbage man? Throw it in the street because there's no-one to take it away? Sewage worker - who would work in such 'dangerous' (since you can't get treated if you are sick) conditions...

Saddams palaces came from illegal sales of oil outside the Oil for Food programme and illegal imports of materials to build them. True enough that, had he been a benevolent ruler, he would have used his black market network to import drugs, hospital equipment etc and not build palaces - but that doesn't excuse the UN for the effects of the sanctions which should have been limited to military supplies.

I mean, for heaven's sake, why did we forbid the import of soap, leather and raw cloth material???
Were we afraid that Saddam would fire Cloth Scuds from a leather launchpad?
Were we afraid that the Cloth Scuds would carry 'Soap' bomblets that might caused a coalition trooper to slip up on and break his neck? Or was it out of pure vindictiveness?

I'm glad that Saddam has been removed from power, he killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - but I'm even more glad that the sanctions have ended - because they killed even more.

<font color=orange>So what if, by British laws, Blair hasn't done anything wrong and the British government decides there is nothing to charge him with. Can the the ICC still bring him up on charges? There is no justice in that. Who makes all the "International" criminal laws any way? Are these law makers elected in popular elections? What governing body sets the Judges and Prosecutors? If your convicted, where do you serve your time? Time to way in TL and sort this out. Of course, actually to me, it makes no difference, since we didn't sign on to the ICC.

As far as the sanctions go, wasn't the purpose of the sanctions to get the people of Iraq to throw Saddam and his sons out? Wasn't there a fairly good reason to deny the Iraqi Government access to certain technologies, because of their willingness to use them for indecent purposes like making mustard gas, VX, Nuclear Weapons... etc, etc, ad nauseum. It is a proven fact, beyond all doubt that he used such weapons against Iranian Soldiers and on the Kurds. That's the reason so many Iraqi children died. Not because of some injustice done to them by the UN. But by the injustice of their ruler Saddam Hussien. If the UN was guilty of something, it was not stepping in and doing what was right back in 1991 and removing Saddam from power. And before you say it we (the US)were as guilty as the UN was. We had the opportunity and we blew it.
But the real blame must be placed on Saddam, no the UN sanctions. It was his actions that led to this whole mess.</font>

Skunk, I simply feel your set of facts is more myth than fact. The sources who've told you all that are as guilty of hyperbole as President Bush. I saw several reports, and a brief look told me the writers were as good at manipulating facts to spell inevitable doom as the chicken little side of the global warming issue are -- and for me, it discredited their claims.

Best I remember, Private Lynch was able to live through grievous wounds in an Iraqi hospital. I've read several lengthy articles in Time (which seems rather unbiased -- or at least willing to denegrate all sides of an issue) regarding the sentiments in Iraq. I've read tons of "we were safer and more secure under Saddam" and not yet one hint of "gee, we're so happy to have medicine, as we didn't for years."

Those sanctions, as I recall, limited *amounts* of many things without outright banning them. Don't hold me to it -- I'm not an expert on the sanctions and don't pretend to be. I just saw so much hype about them before the war and I've seen no reported after-effects since the war.

I did:
Add this bit from Article 22 and I feel secure in my analysis:
Brits say no problem, can ICC bring charges?
Yes, but only if the Britts did not properly investigate or did not investigate impartially:
From what I saw on the floor of the House of Lords, Tony Blair was not only investigated "impartially," some of his follows seemed out for blood. With all of England hating him anyway, it's hard to say the government didn't investigate the issue properly. Unless you discredit the British criminal/investigatory system altogether,I'd say the court will not second-guess it. ;) I could be wrong -- but I don't think I am.

Penalties?
Where is time served?
Read the full text if you like.

[ 07-30-2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

The sources came directly from the UN Oil for Food Programme website and UN relief agencies. But I will allow yours to be the last word on the matter, for fear of running a circular 'off-topic' argument. We can agree to differ on that subject.

Well, first and foremost there has been no official and impartial inquiry by the judiciary.

In any event, the charges being laid by the Athens Bar Association have *never* been addressed in the British Parliament - most of the fuss has centred on whether or not Blair lied about the reasons for going to war - not on the consequences and conduct of the troops nor whether the action was legal.

<font color="#C0C0C0">
"The Athens Bar Association accuses the government of breaching almost every international treaty and the entire spectrum of human rights in the 47-page complaint.

"The repeated, blatant violations by the United States and Britain of the stipulations of the four 1949 Geneva conventions, the 1954 convention of the Hague as well as the charter of the international criminal court, constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity," the lawyers said in a statement.

"[The accused] intended to cause severe psychological distress or major physical or psychological damage to individuals who enjoy the protection of the Geneva conventions."...

...The association, which has 20,000 members, said the campaign against Iraq was highlighted by attacks on a non-combative population, non-military targets and defenceless towns, villages, settlements and buildings.

The natural environment was also destroyed by air assaults that were disproportionate to the desired military objective, it argued.
The Guardian

"The lawyers, from the Athens Bar Council, say they have compiled a dossier of "strong evidence" against the officials, including more than 20 alleged war crimes.

They include the killing of Iraqi civilians, depriving the population of drinking water in cities such as Basra, the destruction of food supplies and the bombardment of residential areas."
BBC
</font>

If Blair really believes that he has no case to answer for, he should be asking for a copy of the charges in order to hand them over to an independent judicial inquiry - so that he can clear his name. The fact that he doesn't is mystifying...

[ 07-30-2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

At least four errors in this paragraph Timber!!

Tony Blair is not even allowed to enter the House of Lords. The thought of the Lords questioning him is hilarious. We fought a Civil War to stop all that palaver. MP's can't even use the phrase 'the House of Lords'. They refer to it as 'another place'. I'm not sure what you witnessed, possibly Question Time in the House of Commons. The poodle never put himself forward to answer questions by the Parliamentary Committee although he may well have been questioned by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Unfortunately this committee reports directly to him so is hardly independent.

It isn't all of England that hate him, it's the all of Britain.

The Government didn't investigate the issue at all. If it were up to the Government the issue wouldn't never be mentioned. His own party members questioned him but as usual he sidestepped them.

The British criminal/investigatory system was hardly used despite calls from members of all parties for a full independent judicial review into the reasons for going to war.

Then came Kelly and all of a sudden the Poodle is in the full glare again!